The essay will then conclude by linking these areas to the question of whether Rousseau’s Du Contrat Social signals the advent of modern democratic republicanism or a could serve to suppress individual human freedom and the importance of remembering the context of when Rousseau’s Du Contrat Social was written. Freedom according to Rousseau Although Rousseau believes that men did indeed have natural human freedom, he does not believe that men can simply regain their ‘natural freedom’. The reason for this remains unexplained in ‘Du Contrat Social’. However Rousseau believes they must “voluntarily agree to the creation of a social order, which though not ‘natural’ is, or has become, indispensable” (Keens- Soper, 1988, p.175). Rousseau’s aim in creating Du Contrat Social was not to allow men to regain their natural freedom, his aim was to “ find a form of association which will defend the person and
However, he still dreaded of equality and prosperity of France, trying to protect it and guarantee its leading role in the world policy, in order to use its influence and spread the ideas of revolution. Trying to support this statement with the clear evidence, it is necessary to analyze the background of the rise of Napoleon and conditions
Mouffe envisage the model of 'agonistic' democracy that, far from imposing a general rational order, maintains both democratic pluralism and a realm of political conflicts and frictions. According to this view, 'the "other" is no longer seen as an enemy to be destroyed, but as an "adversary," i.e., somebody with whose ideas we are going to struggle but whose right to defend those ideas we will not put into question.' (Mouffe 1999, 755) In this respect, Habermasian theory that finds its justification in universalizing the procedures of justifications themselves 'is a conceptual impossibility.' (Laclau and Mouffe 2001,
Through this thought process, Hobbes comes to the conclusion that if humans seek peace, forfeiting your rights to a ruler, and keeping covenants, society will be taken out of a “state of nature.” This belief though does not escape the criticism of an unfair ruler though. An unfair ruler could create covenants that do not benefit society for the sake of taking it out of the state of nature, but to benefit himself. In Thomas Hobbes Leviathan his argument that seeking peace and keeping covenants will take society out of the state of nature is challenged by the argument that a corrupted ruler could pervert covenants to not benefit society as a whole; thus not taking it out of a state of nature. Hobbes sees humans in a state of nature, meaning that the human race is in a primal state, in constant flux and chaos. Humans are worried about their own survival first and foremost.
Therefore, physical and economic insecurity justify revolution in Hobbes’ Commonwealth, which creates inconsitency in Hobbes arguement. Revolution is permitted in Hobbes’ Commonwealth, but only if a majority of citizens are not protected by the sovereign. Security justifies the Commonwealth, thus the Commonwealth is justified by general security. The foundation of Hobbes’ argument relies on that “during the time men live without a common power … they are in… war” (CITATION PAGE 82), and that it is a natural right for a man to work for “the preservation of… his own life” (CITATION PAGE 84). Because of this, it is logical for persons to leave the state of nature by forming a Commonwealth, in which they all simultaneously sacrifice their rights to the same entity
Marx’s first criticisms are towards the concept of liberal democracy as defined by John Stuart Mill. Mill describes liberal democracy as a society in which the government promotes the common good of the citizens by recognizing the natural right of private property, the tendency towards market economies, and the equality in social and economic opportunities as well as in personal and civic liberties. (Mill, John Stuart. "On Liberty: Chapter 1.”). Marx believed instead that liberal democracy does not represent the best type of government since it does not correspond to a natural order but rather reflects a very human abstract view of society.
Although focusing on European populism unlike Müller who talks more about the American counterpart, Taggart also defends the idea that populism is detrimental to democracy. As Müller, he says that it is the dismissal of opposing views as illegitimate that that makes it anti-democratic. Taggart goes further to argue that populist do not put their concerns on representation but on betterment of governance of the nation thus, seeing democracy as unnecessary or secondary. He also mentions the populist creation of the “heartland”, a pure nation that was brought down by the establishment and their support of globalisation. Taggart sees that creates a discrimination of people that are equal under the same rights and that by regarding them as an “other” they are being anti-democratic as well.
However, humans’ egoism and selfishness disturb others’ freedom, because they think freedom is something that will solve their life problems and reduce responsibility from them. These circumstances make humankind incapable of using their freedom and create chaos. Thus, persons realize that it is necessary to create something that can control them and prevent chaos. And the example of comparison between authority and freedom is Jesus and The Grand Inquisitor in “The Brothers Karamazov”. On the one hand is Jesus
The limits of freedom of expression in connection with Charlie Hebdo Liberté, égalité, fraternité, (translated; liberty, equality, and fraternity) is the proud motto of the French and the fundament of a great nation. But are these three values cohesive and equally represented in European democracies? After the shootings on the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, an intense debate about the limitation of freedom of speech has arisen. Based on the English philosopher John S. Mill’s theory of freedom of expression, this essay will show why the freedom of speech should be controlled. This essay is composed upon the belief that there should be a limit to what is allowed to be expressed when it is on the expense of others, both physically and mentally.
But we need not be provoked to reach the assumption that Nietzsche tried to justify the importance of a leader to command the people. On the contrary he deemed that the greatest danger in the contemporary world is existence of the leaders who stand aloof from the political world and instrumentally manipulate it for their own aims and ends. That the moral and ethical claims cannot provide the grounding for a society and leaders should break the barriers of slave morality to follow the strides of master morality, is a recurrent theme in Nietzsche’s opus because he argued that moral systems are based on and derive fro power relations, from politics itself. Tracy B. strong in her essay Nietzsche’s Political Misappropriation